I bow to your professional knowledge in this and it's perhaps because I've had to skip most of the thread, but are you saying that it's not being heard by a proper court room with a real judge or judges? I'm still talking about City's claim that was launched in Feb and leaked yesterday?115 is a section W action under a disciplinary panel.
City's claim is a section X arbitration action.
All under the PL rules but different rules, a little more like CAS.
I’d buy it . Let me know when you reach 100%.I have. 80,000 words. I've disguised every person I wrote about. 500 quid to self-publish. I'm a bit anxious about doing it. A few close friends have read it, and the feedback is very strong. It is funny, tbf. It is a question of having the confidence to publish it. I signed many NDAs over my career. I'm 90% going to publish.
We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.
Was she the one who accepted the job and then backtracked blaming undue influence from 'certain clubs'? It might have been one of the other 2 or 3 who turned it down though.
WE are taking legal advice, two ways of looking at it.Put it this way, we aren't going into this blind mate, we obviously have evidence coming out of our ears to pursue this.
So chuffed we've finally said enough is enough and have decided to fight back.
This will have all been planned to the minutest detail, I really think if we got the ammo to shoot masters and the Premier League down in flames then this 115 charges gets put to bed.
Loving the media throwing haymakers at us and nothing landing.
With respect, that’s nonsense.We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.
Spot-on. The confidential document forms part of our case. It has been leaked to the media a week before the hearing by someone acting in bad faith. It can only have come from the PL or one of our rival clubs. The media have been complicit in this smear campaign since day one. Our club has to fight back against this corruption. Let’s call it out for what it is.It only makes the club look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole if you accept the way this is being painted in an article using cherry-picked phrases from a huge (and presumably very complicated) legal document, chosen by someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand the legal issues at stake, and supported by quotes from an unnamed source presumably being the same guy as the one who gave the document to the journalist in the first place. The whole article was written by a guy who couldn't pick up on the legal nuances, only the issues that a football journalist would recognise.
Have a little more confidence in the people who own the club. They deserve that, at least, and I have no doubt they know what they are doing and why.
Sitting on the fence, if we were to lose this our reputation is utterly destroyed.Still a bit surprised that it’s not Newcastle challenging this, tbh. Or at least a joint challenge from both clubs, given that the rules are very clearly targeted at us both.
Problem is that this is all about some vague notion of associated parties, we think specifically designed by the red tops to handicap our sponsorship revenue, not related partiesMy only criticism of this is the club should have done this the day they walked into the club.
This is a simple case of restriction of trade, which in my opinion is just wrong.
Why should an owner, any owner at that not be allowed to invest in his/hers business and then use that business to promote their other business?
IE Sir Jim Radcliffe own parts of the Mercedes F1 team and he has the name of his company Ineos plastered on the car.
And if Jimmy want to plaster Ineos on the rags shirts good luck to him.